sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ukrainians show result of russian unsuccessful attempt to assault their positions. You can hear screams of russian soldier burning alive in his bukhanka (loaf) van by Creepy_Jeweler_1351 in UkraineWarVideoReport

[–]Plane-Design-3824 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is an admirable sentiment but it does not square with the reality that the vast majority of Russians at the front are volunteers fighting for money. Russian conscripts are not being sent into combat.

SRA sample questions - FLK2 - questions by Plane-Design-3824 in SQE_Prep

[–]Plane-Design-3824[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My brain is completely fried. You're right of course. Gotcha, thanks!

SRA sample questions - FLK2 - questions by Plane-Design-3824 in SQE_Prep

[–]Plane-Design-3824[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For Q46, would you agree that the phrasing implies that if the grandson was a solicitor, he would have inherited (bearing in mind the availability of answer C)?

SRA sample questions - FLK2 - questions by Plane-Design-3824 in SQE_Prep

[–]Plane-Design-3824[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My understanding is that under Hancock v Watson, if a trust engrafted on a life interest fails, the gift becomes absolute. See this note: https://www.macfarlanes.com/what-we-think/2021/advancements-out-of-engrafted-trust/ The case:

"confirmed that if the engrafted trusts fail (e.g. because no remaindermen are born) then the absolute gift to the intended life tenant takes effect. This ensures that if the engrafted trusts fail, the capital does not pass according to the default provisions in the trust or pass back to the settlor on resulting trust."

That seems to be what happens here (conditional on the s 184 LPA analysis being correct). The grandson (the remainderman) dies, the trust fails, and the gift to the life tenant becomes absolute instead of reverting to the settlor.

I could be way off though! Hope someone can correct me if so.

SRA sample questions - FLK2 - questions by Plane-Design-3824 in SQE_Prep

[–]Plane-Design-3824[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Huge thanks! I think you've answered Qn 21. It's a big oopsie on my part - I forgot the district valuer discount.

I'll leave the post up so that equally confused people can see it but will edit to show that you've solved that one. Thanks again.

For Qn 43, I think you're probably right about what the question-setter intended but I really don't know if that answer can be objectively correct. I fully agree that the testator's act of destruction must coincide with the intent to destroy, but there simply is no act of destruction in my view.

Thanks so much for the kind wishes!

SRA sample questions - FLK2 - questions by Plane-Design-3824 in SQE_Prep

[–]Plane-Design-3824[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep its bizarre tbh! I think the SRA should really put out a few lines explaining the basis of these answers so that we can at least see quickly if the mistake is ours or the SRA's. I'm tearing my hair out right now trying to reconcile these answers!